|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
NA
|
6-10 weeks
|
N=6, n=2076; SMD= -0.24, 95%CI: -0.46, -0.03, 95%PrI: -0.77. 0.34
|
Moderate risk: 33% of the studies had an overall high risk of bias (due
to missing outcome data, and issues with outcome measurement and
selective reporting of findings. 33% of studies had a moderate risk of
bias).
|
Low Risk: the extent to which the result was affected by reporting
biases was rated as low as per the RoB-ME assessment
|
Moderate risk: 3 of the 6 studies used the Motivation and Energy
Inventory, 2 used a single MADRS anhedonia item, and 1 used the
IDS-IVR-30/IDS-C-30 Pleasure Scale. As anhedonia is a complex construct,
“pleasure” scales and single items may fail at capturing the complexity
of anhedonia in the context of depression .The impact of the bias and
its direction is unclear
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
NA
|
Symptoms of anhedonia
|
NA
|
NA
|
The impact of the bias on the magnitude and direction of the effects of
pro-dopaminergic interventions is unclear.
|
This was as the potential for missing results across the review was
judged to be low and no studies were unclear as to whether there was an
eligible result generated.
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Direct and indirect evidence for
|
Symptoms of anhedonia (MADRS anhedonia item)
|
8 weeks
|
N=34, n=14054; SMD= -0.12, 95%CI: -0.25 to 0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
pro-dopaminergic interventions (i.e., bupropion) vs placebo
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Direct and indirect evidence for
|
Symptoms of anhedonia (MADRS anhedonia item)
|
8 weeks
|
N=34, n=14054
|
|
|
|
|
|
non-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
NA
|
NA
|
Agomelatine SMD= -0.05, 95%CI: -0.19 to 0.08; Amitriptyline SMD= -0.09,
95%CI: -0.78 to 0.60; Citalopram SMD= -0.16, 95%CI: -0.28 to -0.05;
Desipramine SMD= -0.15, 95%CI: -0.50 to 0.20; Duloxetine SMD= -0.40,
95%CI: -0.48 to -0.32; Escitalopram SMD= -0.21, 95%CI: -0.39 to -0.03;
Fluoxetine SMD= -0.28, 95%CI: -0.46 to -0.11; Paroxetine SMD= -0.32,
95%CI: -0.41 to -0.23; Reboxetine SMD= -0.39, 95%CI: -0.74 to -0.04;
Trazodone SMD= -0.11, 95%CI: -0.36 to 0.15; Venlafaxine SMD= -0.30,
95%CI: -0.47 to -0.13; Vortioxetine SMD= -0.31, 95%CI: -0.42 to -0.19.
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Direct and indirect evidence of
|
Symptoms of anhedonia (single MADRS anhedonia item)
|
8 weeks
|
N=34, n=14054
|
|
|
|
|
|
pro-dopaminergic interventions (i.e. buproprion) vs non-dopaminergic
|
NA
|
NA
|
Agomelatine SMD= 0.07, 95%CI: -0.09 to 0.23; Amitriptyline SMD= 0.04,
95%CI: -0.64 to 0.73; Citalopram SMD= -0.05, 95%CI: -0.20 to 0.11;
Desipramine SMD= -0.03, 95%CI: -0.38 to 0.31; Duloxetine SMD= -0.28,
95%CI: -0.41 to -0.15; Escitalopram SMD= -0.09, 95%CI: -0.28 to 0.11;
Fluoxetine SMD= -0.16, 95%CI: -0.36 to 0.07; Paroxetine SMD= -0.20,
95%CI: -0.34 to -0.07; Reboxetine SMD= -0.27, 95%CI: -0.62 to 0.08;
Trazodone SMD= 0.01, 95%CI: -0.24 to 0.26; Venlafaxine SMD= -0.18,
95%CI: -0.33 to -0.02; Vortioxetine SMD= -0.19, 95%CI: -0.34 to -0.04.
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on
|
Anxiety symptoms
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=11, n=3517; SMD=-0.17, 95%CI: -0.24, -0.09, 95%PrI: -0.25, -0.08
|
Moderate risk: 73% of studies were rated as having an overall moderate
risk of bias while 18% were rated as high risk of bias.
|
Low Risk: the extent to which the result was affected by reporting
biases was rated as low.The potential for missing results across the
review was judged to be low and no studies were unclear as to whether
there was an eligible result generated.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Acceptability (dropout for any reason)
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=52, n=9725; OR=0.97, 95%CI: 0.79, 1.17, 95%PrI: 0.37, 2.53
|
Low risk: 59% had a low overall risk of bias, 10% of studies were rated
as having a high risk of bias, primarily due to concerns over outcome
measurement, while 31% were rated moderate risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk. Low risk: all studies included patients with depression
receiving pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Tolerability
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=43, n=9030;OR=1.83, 95%CI: 1.38, 2.41, 95%PrI: 0.67, 4.95
|
Low risk: 53% had an overall low risk of bias, 12% of studies had an
overall high risk of bias, primarily due to concerns over outcome
measurement, while 35% were rated moderate risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
NA
|
(dropout for side effects)
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Constipation reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-10 weeks
|
N=21, n=5375; OR=1.46, 95%CI: 1.17, 1.82, 95% PrI: 1.15, 1.84
|
Low risk: 77% of studies were rated as having an overall low risk of
bias and 5% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk:
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Dizziness reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=24, n=6026,; OR=1.70, 95%CI: 1.32, 2.18, 95%PrI: 0.89, 3.24
|
Low risk: 59% of studies were rated as having an overall low risk of
bias and only 8% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk:
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Dry mouth reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-10 weeks
|
N=26, n=6865; OR=2.13, 95%CI: 1.73, 2.63, 95%PrI: 1.28, 3.56
|
Low risk: 67% of studies were rated low risk of bias for RoB2 while only
4% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Headache reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=28, n=7084; OR=1.14, 95%CI: 1.02, 1.28, 95%PrI: 1.00, 1.30
|
Low risk: 65% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 31% were
rated as moderate risk with scores of ‘some concerns’ spread out across
domains in no clear pattern.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Nausea reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=26, n=6489; OR=1.46, 95%CI: 1.21, 1.76, 95% PrI: 0.92, 2.29
|
Low risk: 73% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 23% were
rated moderate.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Insomnia reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=24, n=6432; OR=1.81, 95%CI: 1.46, 2.25, 95%PrI: 1.18, 2.78
|
Low risk: 73% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 23% were
rated moderate.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Vomiting reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
6-12 weeks
|
N=5, n=962; OR=1.90, 95%CI: 0.90, 4.00, 95%PrI: 0.82, 4.42
|
Moderate risk: 4of 5 studies were rated as moderate risk and 1 study as
high risk due to concerns in RoB2 domains 3 (missing outcome data) and 4
(measuring the outcome).
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|